Lucem712:The argument I hear most frequently is that bad dudes don't care 'bout laws so we need guns to protect ourselves from the baddies.

(It's being said that the weapon the Colorado massacre was a legal rifle, AR-15, which was legalized after the ban on it ran out. So, it's possible that stricter laws could have prevented a slaughter on that scale. But, that's not really the issue, because he probably could have gotten it regardless on the black-market.)

I don't think you'll ever be able to prevent real baddies from getting these kind of weapons, or diehard hunters.

I think the answer is education and having a license to own a weapon. I need a license to drive a car legally, but I can just go buy a shotgun? Though, that's more about personal safety and won't solve the issue of massacres.

That being said, my father owns a gun. It's a 9 mm and probably doesn't even work at this point. It's pretty much a bluff weapon.

The AR-15 was never banned for civilian sale. Assault weapons, weapons in an automatic configuration were banned. The perpetrator of the Batman shooting acquired all of his guns, magazines, and ammunition through legal channels, over so long a period of time as to not raise any alarms. He planned this, meticulously, and would not have been prevented committing his crime were there no guns to shoot: he would simply have done something else. Maybe simply blown up the theater. The ingredients to make high-explosive devices are MUCH easier to acquire than guns. To whit, I have virtually no money, and could, by next week, have materials and directions enough to destroy a small building. Imagine what that maniac might have done.

I propose we leave them the fuck alone and not cull them. If we need to expand endlessly at the expense of other animals to feed our spawn then i simply propose we have -you know- LESS BABIES.

It's sad that you think i only care about pigs because you assume (incorrectly) that i think they're 'cute' or because i'm ignorant. I care about pigs because they, like everything on this planet, are connected to the massive ecosystem that every living thing depends on. It's not even about Pigs, it's about the incorrect assumption that humans have more right to life than animals, period. Every organism is equally as important as the next. It's dangerous for people to foster the attitude that we are somehow above nature and natural systems or that "we can do fine without this-or-that species" because the simple fact is, we can't. Its irresponsible to just reproduce without caring about the consequences of overpopulation and it's irresponsible to eliminate animals because they're "pests" when we have little to no understanding of the big-picture reprecussions.

I think it's hypocrytical to consider a species to be cullable and not another, to whit - it's not considered ok to cull humans, but pigs are fine. Also you seem to have missed my point about ownership of land - the pigs don't own it, we don't own it. We just live on it, there's a difference. And as neither of us own it, they have as much right to it as we do, ergo they dont deserve to die just because you want to live there.

Your attitude towards animals and their rights is scarily similar to peoples' attitude towards Native Americans way back when everyone thought they had found a new land to exploit that was, inconveniently, already populated. I didn't want to bring up something that seems aimed at Americans so i will point out that this kind of behaviour can be found in virtually every nations' history - see spaniards and South America. By the way, and finally on topic; both conquests were made possible by the use of firearms since they would pretty much have been on equal terms without them - probably at a disadvantage because they were unfamilar with the land and unprepared to deal with it.

I think i speak for more than just myself when i say i'm anti-gun because guns make killing easier and i'm against killing.

Except I haven't proposed hunting them to extinction, just enough to keep the herd in check. It need not be all or nothing. And since North America's birth rate has slowed significantly, we're doing just fine on the 'less babies' front too.

We've gotta eat, and we're not willing to starve for the sake of the pigs. We do own the land by virtue of the fact that we can hold it; and guns are an integral part of the strategy.

As another has pointed out, there's a difference between pigs and humans. I favor humans because they are my species, if the pigs have a problem with that, they'll have no problem finding us.

Yeah, it starts off as "we only need to kill a few, not all" but what about in 10, 20, 100 years when "Oh look, we need more land" and the pigs, or any other bloody animal, have to take another one for team human.

I CAN tell the difference between pigs and people, i just consider both to be equally important in the grand scheme of life.

Get over yourself, if you think humans are so great - give them another 100 million years and see if they're still around. Most species on earth have had alot more time on it than us and they're still going strong and havent managed to destroy themselves or ruin the planet for everything else in that time. Homo-sapiens, however, are literally a mass-extinction event and they've only been around for around a million years.

I guess i am in a minority with my views, but that doesn't make them wrong - i'm just being objective. Also if you care about humans so much, how about you stop rallying for something that is designed to kill them, oh and also stop supporting ideals which will ultimately lead to our very existence being threatened.

Want to stop people raping and stealing? Don't just kill them, there will always be more where they came from - seek out the cause of a problem instead of dealing with the effect all the time.

FireDr@gon:Yeah, it starts off as "we only need to kill a few, not all" but what about in 10, 20, 100 years when "Oh look, we need more land" and the piggies have to take another one for team human.

I CAN tell the difference between pigs and people, i just consider both to be equally important in the grand scheme of life.

Get over yourself, if you think humans are so great - give them another 100 million years and see if they're still around. Most species on earth have had alot more time on it than us and they're still going strong and havent managed to destroy themselves or ruin the planet for everything else in that time. Homo-sapiens, however, are literally a mass-extinction event and they've only been around for around a million years.

I guess i am in a minority with my views, but that doesn't make them wrong - i'm just being objective. Also if you care about humans so much, how about you stop rallying for something that is designed to kill them, oh and also stop supporting ideals which will ultimately lead to our very existence being threatened.

Want to stop people raping and stealing? dont just kill them, there will always be more - seek out the cause of a problem instead of dealing with the effect all the time.

Hehe. Okaaaay.

Yes, when there's an intruder in my home I'm going to try and go all Dr. Phil on my assailant. Good plan. /Sarcasm

Look, if it makes you feel better: the Earth will recover no matter what we do. Species come and species go, again birth rates in more developed countries are more or less stabilizing, and -hey- I'm not against vertical farming. But until we reach a point where that equalizes, we need our resources. So that means "So Long, Piggies, Thanks For Being So Delicious!"

No, the earth will not "Recover no matter what we do" and that's the whole smegging point of what i've been rambling on about. Why don't you take an A-level or equivilant in Biology so you can wise up. You shouldn't need to go as far as degree level to realise your mistake.

FireDr@gon:Yeah, it starts off as "we only need to kill a few, not all" but what about in 10, 20, 100 years when "Oh look, we need more land" and the piggies have to take another one for team human.

Most pigs alive today owe their existence to the fact that their meat is delicious. Domesticated pigs exist in the hundreds of thousands because we raised them up in order to kill them.

I CAN tell the difference between pigs and people, i just consider both to be equally important in the grand scheme of life.

Obviously, we don't want them to go extinct. But I don't feel guilty for every rat who's neck gets snapped in a trap. I don't care about Bambi's mom dying because the sheer number of deer in the world make them the rats of the forest.

Get over yourself, if you think humans are so great - give them another 100 million years and see if they're still around. Most species on earth have had alot more time on it than us and they're still going strong and havent managed to destroy themselves or ruin the planet for everything else in that time. Homo-sapiens, however, are literally a mass-extinction event and they've only been around for around a million years.

And yet, we're the highest form of life on the planet. That the planet will probably ever see in its existence.

Also, what's up with talking like you're not also a human? That and valuing pigs the same as humans are both kinda disturbing...

[quot]I guess i am in a minority with my views, but that doesn't make them wrong - i'm just being objective.[/quote]

Considering that it's an opinion, it's subjective. But then, mine is as well, so the point of this argument isn't to determine who's "right" but for each of us to defend our viewpoint.

Also if you care about humans so much, how about you stop rallying for something that is designed to kill them, oh and also stop supporting ideals which will ultimately lead to our very existence being threatened.

Again, I care more about the totality of the species than a few individuals. Yes, guns end life, but how many lives have been saved because another life was ended with a gun? I for one feel safer knowing that someone threatening me with a knife in my face can be removed with a gun from a safe distance.

Guns aren't going to cause the extinction of the human race. Nuclear arms are far more likely to be that cause, barring sudden disasters like severe climate change or an extinction-level stellar impact.

Want to stop people raping and stealing? dont just kill them, there will always be more - seek out the cause of a problem instead of dealing with the effect all the time.

But the cause of violence is not guns. Guns are merely one of the best tools we've developed for perpetrating violence.

yeti585:The United States (of America) expressly gave citizens the right to "keep and bear arms" so that if the government started stepping on toes and shoving it's nose in places it shouldn't, the people would have the power to change that. The founders of the United States didn't want the citizens led around on a leash, but many citizens are.

OK, I'm ambivalent about gun control. I was mostly just reading this thread out of boredom, but I have to comment here.

Please, please, PLEASE, stop using this argument to support the second amendment. That rationale ceased to carry any weight about 100 years ago. Back when that amendment was written it was entirely possible for any civilian to have weapons equal to what the military had (barring cannons). It meant that an armed populace could potentially stand up to military force. Not likely but possible.

Today's military has the civilian sector so out gunned it's not even worth commenting on. That 30-06 in your gun case isn't going to do a damn thing if they drop a cruise missile in your living room, and it certainly isn't going to penetrate any armored vehicles should they decide to waltz down your street.

There are plenty of arguably good reasons to support the right to bear arms, so please stop using the one that ceased to be true a century ago.

Buretsu - I didnt mean to imply that guns would spell the end for us all, nothing that dramatic - far more dangerous is the assumption that we can piss on the planet and it's systems for as long as we want without consequences, it may not be as sudden as nuclear war but the effects are just as bad. Also the cause of crime is not, and i never said it was, guns. It's overpopulation and uneven distribution of wealth that causes a defecit in resources which creates conflict. That and a host of socio-economic problems which stem, mainly, from overpopulation. And if guns are "the best tool for perpetrating violence" then that surely is a reason to -you know- stop making them.

It's objective to talk about humans as if i was not one, to view both humans and pigs as merely species inhabiting earth. Far less subjective than the view that "humans are the highest form of life on earth".

About that, let me point out that there are more bacteria in a human body than there are cells in a human body - true a bacteria can't paint a picture or invent democracy but there's no denying that in terms of both 1: time of existance on earth and 2: number of individuals then bacteria, what you would probably call the "lowest" life form, is kicking our ass.

And yes, we invented some tools - i think in the grand scheme of things that ammounts to bugger-all. Like i said, they only really served to disrupt a delicate balance that took around 4bn years to set up.

FireDr@gon:I didnt mean to imply that guns would spell the end for us all, nothing that dramatic - far more dangerous is the assumption that we can piss on the planet and it's systems for as long as we want without consequences, it may not be as sudden as nuclear war but the effects are just as bad. Also the cause of crime is not, and i never said it was, guns. It's over population creating a defecit in resources which creates conflict. That and a host of socio-economic problems which stem, mainly, from overpopulation.

I've heard that the Earth can recover from a lot, if only because whatever happened wiped out humans...

It's objective to view both humans and pigs as merely species inhabiting earth, far less subjective than the view that "humans are the highest form of life on earth".

I'd say human superiority is pretty objective, at least from a mental standpoint. I haven't seen many pigs that regularly post on internet forums, wear pants, drive cars, etc etc.

About that, let me point out that there are more bacteria in a human body than there are cells in a human body - true a bacteria can't paint a picture or invent democracy but there's no denying that in terms of both 1: time of existance on earth and 2: number of individuals then bacteria, what you would probably call the "lowest" life form, is kicking our ass.

Perhaps, but at the least, we'll say that those weren't the terms I was thinking of.

And yes, we invented some tools - i think in the grand scheme of things that ammounts to bugger-all. Like i said, they only really served to disrupt a delicate balance that took around 4bn years to set up.

Like Starcraft II, nature is balanced because everything that makes up nature is so imbalanced. Nature isn't just balanced, it's a series of systems that adjusts to maintain a balance. One species comes into power, another wanes, and eventually even that species will be overpowered by another.

And to neatly tie it back into the pigs, them being there is a result of humans screwing up the natural balance, so hunting is the method used to try and help restore that balance. That's one of the reasons for hunting in general.

Why do we hunt? We obviously don't have to. Nothing in pig or deer meat can't be obtained from other sources. And, of course, some people hunt because they like killing, but still others hunt because we've already pushed out all of the natural predators in the name of expansion or protection of lifestock. It's the circle of life.

Buretsu - It's funny because i was talking about this just yesterday - how "humans have technically done chickens a favour because there would be far less of them around without us" and i'm willing to concede that point. However, that doesn't stop the fact that breeding, say, cows to excess is going to help anything in the long run. In fact massive swathes of life are being destroyed to support two species, cows and people. If biology has taught me anything it's that in order to have a healthy ecosystem you need bio-diversity, and humans really don't leave alot of room for that now and especially not if trends continue. Unfortunately, the kind of damage which humans are causing are not easily bounced back from. The effect that humans are having is prolonged, accelerating and irreversible, with permanent consequences. You can't un-burn a match, it's like that.

Measuring an organisms' success is tricky but i feel that time of existence and number of individuals are pretty much the only important factors. When people have existed for a hundred million years or so without cocking everything up then they might be worthy of such a grand title as "highest life form". For now i think "Life form that shows promise" is far more realistic. What measures of success would you say are important?

Krantos - I know what objective means, and because i said "my veiws are in the minority" does not make my points come from a subjective stand point. My objective statement about people and pigs is that they are both species that inhabit earth. My subjective points or "my views" are anti gun, pro bio-diversity. Also you need to learn the difference between a discussion or debate and a fight.

Whilst I find your concern for the environment and animals admirable, we need to clear something up.

Pigs in Australia (and I believe the US also) are an introduced species. You're correct that we need to take care to not completely fuck up the natural order of things, unfortunately we already did that when we took pigs from one country and allowed them to establish themselves in another.

In Australia at least, if we were to let wild pigs go without any form of hunting or control, then the native species of animals are going to suffer greatly for it.

Its also not exclusive to introduced species. Kangaroos are considered a pest in some parts of Australia. Not simply because we don't want them around, but because they are thriving beyond the land's ability to sustain them, alongside other natives.

The effect these animals have on humans is also a valid issue. You are clearly of the impression that a human life and an animal life are on near equal footing, which is fine. However acknowledging that we are just smart animals means acknowledging that we have the same rights as other animals, to establish and maintain territory and have a primary concern for our own species.

Our higher intellect does mean we have an increased responsibility of course. It means we have to know when and where to stop. If culling of a creature is required, for its own good, our own good and the good of other native wildlife, then it should be done as humanely as possible with great care taken to ensure that a sustainable population remains.

FireDr@gon:No, the earth will not "Recover no matter what we do" and that's the whole smegging point of what i've been rambling on about. Why don't you take an A-level or equivilant in Biology so you can wise up. You shouldn't need to go as far as degree level to realise your mistake.

Oh? Funny, there's been how many extinction level events this little ball has bounced back from? And excuse my oh-so-unlearned-ignorance, but didn't this planet start out as a lifeless rock?

I think the globe can stand a couple pigs dying in Texas.

Sheesh-to hear you tell it- with all the volcanic eruptions, forest fires, asteroids, ice ages, disease, and insect plagues this planet should have withered into a dead husk with no help from us.

But enough with the hyperbolic doomsaying, as it distracts from the topic. Wild Pigs need to be hunted. Why? Because we need to eat. Can the human population stand some reduction itself? Sure. But that doesn't happen overnight. Does agriculture need to enter a modernization phase and perhaps employ the same advantages tall buildings had offered urban development? Sure. But that doesn't happen overnight.

Know what does happen overnight? Culling a few hundred head of boar.

See, if you don't solve the short-term problem, you won't be around to solve the long-term problem. I am not at all opposed to better population, agricultural, and environmental policies; but you can't see what your stepping in when you've got your head in the clouds.

FireDr@gon:No, the earth will not "Recover no matter what we do" and that's the whole smegging point of what i've been rambling on about. Why don't you take an A-level or equivilant in Biology so you can wise up. You shouldn't need to go as far as degree level to realise your mistake.

Yes it will. If we abuse the environment too much then humanity will die out, that much is a given, but once we were gone the Earth would replenish itself. The Earth is a living organism, its biological functions allow it to restore itself given time. Humanity needs to be in harmony with nature in order to survive on this planet, we need to let the Earth go along its natural cycles otherwise it will come back to haunt us and we won't survive the aftermath.

Ever watched Life After People? It was a stunning program of what the Earth would do if the human race disappeared, the Earth took over and destroyed all of our artificial creations like skyscrapers and electronics. The forests will come back, the pollution will disappear, radiation will fade away, and where cities use to be will be overtaken by plants eroding away at them. The Earth is here to stay, we need to respect the Earth or we won't be the same.

TheKaduflyerSystem:As someone living in the UK, I personally think that our police should be armed more, if not every officer that at least one firearm per car, this is partially due to my "Do crime-Be Punished" stance, and I would much prefer to see more criminals dead than rotting in a jail cell; but per person? Hmmm... well, if the logic behind owning a gun is to protect the owner from burglars, the burglar is also armed, if no-one could by guns, some people may be less confident in burglary, and therefore not attempt it, it would at least prevent more people being injured during burglaries, bad enough that your stuff gets stolen, but you have to go to hospital? And don't you have to pay significant sums of money for healthcare in america? No guns for civilians could solve a few problems...

Please do correct me if I'm wrong on any of these.

Additional: I do go slightly off tangent, but less guns would mean less bullet wounds.

Increased gun control doesn't reduce the number of guns that criminals have, especially in a nation with such massive unsecured borders as the US. In fact, increased gun control doesn't reduce the rates of murder, violent crime, or overall crime in any way.

Alleged Despair:Even if handguns are outlawed that still will not stop some people from acquiring them. However I think it will drastically reduce the number of people who do. I have not read this entire forum so I don't know if anyone has already brought this up yet but another issue with the average joe owning handguns is someone unintentionally shooting another person. It does not happen that often but I have seen it both on the news and know someone who someone who has that happened to them. For all you gun supporters out there I have a request. I'd like to see a story of something good that actually happened because of a civilian owning a gun. Or at the very least maybe sometime that could have been less tragic that was avoided because of a civilian owning a handgun. I for have never heard of such a thing.

how about the time when a vice principle stopped a school shooting, saving dozens of lives, because he had a gun?What about the estimated 1.5 million Americans who use guns in self-defense every single year, about 500 thousand of which firmly believed that someone would have died if they didn't have that gun? What about the fact that police shoot innocent people 11% of the time whilst gun owners defending themselves do so only 2% of the time?What about the time in Texas when several law abiding citizens left their legally owned handguns in their cars because they weren't allowed to have them in a restaurant, only to have some psycho come into the restaurant and start executing people, people who could have been saved if these citizens had been allowed to carry their handguns into the restaurant?How about the time a group of gang members attacked a church with AKs and grenades and were scared off when an armed citizen within the church returned fire?I could go on all day. The fact is that absolutely zero scientific evidence exists to support the assumption that more gun control reduces crime, and there is scientific evidence(though not conclusive) that suggests that more handguns actually means less crime.http://www.beyourself.com/howtostp.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacrehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_James_Church_MassacreYou don't hear about it because it doesn't make good news, not because it doesn't happen.

Glass Joe the Champ:I personally never saw the point in owning a gun, but it's such an integral part of our society and economy in America that attempting to get rid of them would be futile, even if the second amendment was overturned (which it won't be).

So in my opinion, people can keep their guns, but under these conditions:

1. No sale of weapons beyond hunting equipment or self defense pistols. I'll let gun experts decide what's what, but I know that no one will ever need a semi-auto assault rifle with 100 ammo capacity to defend themselves.

2. Concealing your gun should be illegal. If you really only want a gun in case shit hits the fan, you should have no problem leaving your gun out in the open.

3. Businesses should be allowed to keep gun holders off their property. I find it completely batshit insane that some politicians think businesses should be able to refuse service on grounds of race or sexual orientation, yet gun carriers can go wherever they please. Unlike the latter case, store owners actually have a reason to not allow gun owners. (i.e. keeping themselves and their customers safe) And not to point fingers or play what-if, but maybe if the movie theater had a well enforced no-guns policy the guy wouldn't have been able to shoot so many people.

Like many people have said, the US is a whole other beast from the UK in terms of gun culture, and an outright ban would never work, but I think the things above aren't unreasonable even to gun enthusiasts. If you disagree, let me know.

1) Because most times when you're attacked your attackers outnumber you and are drunk or high which makes them harder to stop, assault weapons with large clip capacities are the best defense weapons out there.

2) Most states that allow handguns to be carried require them to be concealed, this isn't a personal choice. I never understood it either, but I think it has something to do with police thinking the public would be scared by people openly carrying a pistol.

3) Horrible idea. Criminals won't respect that law, only the law abiding citizens who might stop them. It has been shown time and time again by the locations these psychos shoot up that gun-free zones actually put the people in them in more danger. One time in Texas when several law abiding citizens left their legally owned handguns in their cars because they weren't allowed to have them in a restaurant, some psycho come into the restaurant and start executing people, people who could have been saved if these citizens had been allowed to carry their handguns into the restaurant? This law has since been changed largely due to the fact that one of the people there, one who had left a handgun in her car, lost both of her parents and then ran for the state assembly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

cotss2012:Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

Really? So America has very little crime other than gun crime? Also surely being mugged of ú20 (though not very nice) is much better than getting shot...or is that just me?

Yeah, but the rape and dying by stab wounds aren't so kind. Hyperbole aside, there is no scientific evidence to support that gun control reduces crime, violent crime, or murder rates, and several studies have been done.

Dan Steele:I am pro gun to an extent. Only pistols (Self defense) and rifles (for hunting) should be legal. No machine pistols or assault rifles. I do view this topic as a great way to show one of my favorite quotes though:

"I am not anti-gun. I'm pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don't ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives."

Hyperbole, why was I expecting more. You do realize that machine pistols and assault rifles are already banned in the US because they are fully automatic yes? For self defense, semi-automatic and high capacity magazine is the only way to go. Firstly, you might be outnumbered badly in a self-defense situation. Second, expecting anyone to hit on the first shot when they're scared out of their minds is naive. Third, it takes multiple hits to stop an attacker, especially when using a handgun. People who are drunk or high have been shot as many as 32 times and still kept shooting back, expecting people to be able to defend themselves with a single action revolver is idiotic.

The Mac 10 is the perfect weapons for a drive by because of its 600 RPM bullet spray. What I mean by machine pistols is any handheld gun that can fire like a machine gun. I would be fine with guns like a 9mm or a glock, but anything rapid fire should be limited to the police or the military. Civilians have no need for a weapon like a Mac 10 or uzi.

FireDr@gon:Yeah, it starts off as "we only need to kill a few, not all" but what about in 10, 20, 100 years when "Oh look, we need more land" and the pigs, or any other bloody animal, have to take another one for team human.

The fact of the matter remains that when a species, no matter how "cute" it might be, has no natural predators and an ample food supply, it will breed itself into starvation.

We're the apex predator of the planet. It's our freakin' job, in the oh-so-delicate circle of life, to shoot and eat the damn pigs. And the deer. And the cows. And the chickens. And pretty much all of the animals.

Because I have no interest in reintroducing wolves and mountain lions and coming home one day to find my children have been eaten.

Dan Steele:I am pro gun to an extent. Only pistols (Self defense) and rifles (for hunting) should be legal. No machine pistols or assault rifles. I do view this topic as a great way to show one of my favorite quotes though:

"I am not anti-gun. I'm pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We'd turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don't ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives."

I rather be shot than stabbed though. Knife deaths look pretty gruesome and painful.

If the blade is serrated it is definitely going to be painful, but if you are skilled with knife fighting getting stabbed wont be a problem, Learn to fight with something like a balisong (butterfly knife) or a trench knife and you can set the standard not to be fucked with.

The Mac 10 is the perfect weapons for a drive by because of its 600 RPM bullet spray. What I mean by machine pistols is any handheld gun that can fire like a machine gun. I would be fine with guns like a 9mm or a glock, but anything rapid fire should be limited to the police or the military. Civilians have no need for a weapon like a Mac 10 or uzi.

Actually the MAC-10 is closer to 1,000 rounds per minute.

The thing is, civilians that want to legally obtain a weapon like that have to jump through a variety of hoops, since they fall into a very specific set of conditions to own, as established by the National Firearms Act.

Title II weapons (which includes pretty much anything that can fire automatically) have to be transferable in order to be sold to a civilian.

What does that mean? Well, for one it means the weapon is registered with the BATF. For another, it means that the weapon had to be manufactured and registered before 1986.

Now, once you've found a weapon like that, which will frequently go for ten to twenty times its hypothetical retail price for a new model, you have to get approval from the ATF, your local sheriff, submit to an extensive background check, and pay a fairly significant tax for the privilege.

And that's assuming you don't live in a state that forbids Title II weapons period.

So what you wind up with is a weapon that is linked to you almost inextricably, that cost you probably more than ten thousand dollars to obtain, that can land you in jail if you do the slightest thing wrong with it, and you had to get permission from law enforcement in order to own it.

Needless to say, NFA-registered weapons are extraordinarily rarely used for crime. To be honest, I can't recall ever actually reading about one being used by its owner for anything other than recreational shooting. They get stolen, of course, but that brings us back to the core problem with gun control laws.

Criminals don't give a fuck about gun control laws. That's one of the things that makes them criminals.

Well, I look at it as being attuned to the history of America's revolutionary roots, and you're not going to see any kind of revolution by throwing rocks. It's tied to what we feel is our birthright to be armed to not only protect ourselves from other armed cretins, but from our own government. Kind of ass-backwards, but you all damned-well know how screwy our entire history of government relations has been since our inception.

I say it's a good thing, because there needs to be an example of it in use so that other countries can make up their mind of the subject with a serious case study of how we've done it. With all the other countries in existence where they tote fully-automatic weapons down the street at one end of the spectrum, we are kind of in the middle between them and the unarmed ones. It's interesting, to say the least.

You tried fudging the nature of the statistics to try and make a point. Your point is based on a completely flawed foundation, not only is the data is insufficient to make a conclusion from its actually irrelevant data to begin with.

Homicide under UK law is any unlawful killing and that includes things like causing death by negligence or recklessness and not just murder. I don't think its me clinging on to delusions here.

I fudged nothing; the data speaks for itself.

An increase in gun control was not accompanied by an decrease in homicide rates. Unless you're now asserting that the UK simply became increasingly negligent over the past 50 years.

The fact of the matter is that the data simply does not support the conclusion that gun control makes people's lives safer to any significant degree. Murderers will murder, regardless of the necessary hurdles they have to clear, and while it could conceivably be argued that gun control might mitigate the severity of the occasional rampage killing, such killings are just a blip in the overall statistics to begin with.

The data doesn't speak for itself at all, homicide is not murder under UK law. With no way of telling which of those unlawful deaths in the graph where actually murder its irrelevant as a source about murder rates.

I am not even saying you are wrong either, all I am saying is you cannot draw a conclusion from inaccurate data and present it as a fact.

This means absolutely nothing. Comparing one country to another doesn't accomplish shit statistically. Statistically, there is no evidence whatsoever that increased gun control reduces gun crime. These are the results of my attempts to find evidence real scientific evidence that increased gun control reduces crime, I was unable to find even one such piece of evidence.

I just wanted to point out that I did not in fact make any argument one way or the other, I simply felt that it would help the debate if some reference-able facts were available, and you proceeded to get offended by the facts and started swearing at me.

Also, if I cannot compare a country to another country, what can I compare a country to? A tree?

I didn't get offended by the facts, I was not offended at all. I curse a lot, I wasn't cursing at you, "doesn't accomplish shit" is just the phrase I use when something doesn't accomplish shit.

I misspoke myself, you can compare one country to another all you want, but the results won't be significant because you have no way of controlling for other variables such as population density, cultural background, and economic stability, just to name a few. If you want to draw any meaningful conclusions about gun control, you need to look at how the implementation of gun control has effected the area that implemented it, or examine a very large number of nations in a statistical analysis. Every single one of my sources did one of these things. Also, why did you cut out the greater part of my post? It had some of the most relevant information, including links that would have told you all this.

There were a couple reasons for my choice of nations, 1. the OP is British, and was posing a question to us here in the USA. 2. The USA and the UK are probably two of the easiest nations to compare... We share a language, we both have predominantly Caucasian populations, we are both first world nations, we both elect our government officials ( in slightly different ways, but still).

Now I will grant the serious discrepancy in population density, the UK is an island approximately the size of Washington State. However, this is the reason that I included the per 100,000 stats, because it was the best possible way to address the discrepancy.

As for why I cut most of your post, it was a simple matter of your post being rather long, and quoting a long post within a long post within a long post becomes rather ungainly and starts to look ridiculous, so I simply quoted the part I was replying to and cut the rest. I did in fact read your whole post, though I did not read all the reference sites, as I had other things I needed to do and had run out of time to address this topic.

There were a couple reasons for my choice of nations, 1. the OP is British, and was posing a question to us here in the USA. 2. The USA and the UK are probably two of the easiest nations to compare... We share a language, we both have predominantly Caucasian populations, we are both first world nations, we both elect our government officials ( in slightly different ways, but still).

Now I will grant the serious discrepancy in population density, the UK is an island approximately the size of Washington State. However, this is the reason that I included the per 100,000 stats, because it was the best possible way to address the discrepancy.

As for why I cut most of your post, it was a simple matter of your post being rather long, and quoting a long post within a long post within a long post becomes rather ungainly and starts to look ridiculous, so I simply quoted the part I was replying to and cut the rest. I did in fact read your whole post, though I did not read all the reference sites, as I had other things I needed to do and had run out of time to address this topic.

There are certainly similarities between UK and US, but there are also a lot of differences.

-US is more diverse in both population and religions-US has more serious organized crime both within the country and outside of its borders than UK. Out of all of the organized crime organizations in the world, the Cartels probably the most sadistic. - UK is an island that shares no borders, making smuggling easy to combat. US shares two borders, both of which are nearly impossible to prevent smuggling through.

It still is a necessity. Hence why it was written. The revolution was roughly 220 years ago (im not looking up for specifics) so what 4 lifetimes of an average human? We may be in a more "civilized" time in human history, but were still barely out of the jungle. Humans will always be assholes. Power and greed will always be in our bones. Also, this civilization we all love so much could easily be turned upside down. All that needs to happen is the electricity stops flowing. People are dumb, panicky and stupid. Id rather have a couple rifles leftover from WW2 just in case something bad happen. Even a natural diaster.

Necrotech:Here it is, in America we have a national history of using/liking/needing firearms. Without firearms our country wouldn't be "our" country, we'd still be a summer home for another nation.

Rubbish. The US wouldn't have won the War of Independance (arguably not have gotten into the position where it was necessary, but that's another matter), but would have gotten independance same as the rest of the Empire later on.

8-Bit_Jack:The AR-15 was never banned for civilian sale. Assault weapons, weapons in an automatic configuration were banned.

An assault weapon isn't an automatic weapon, it's a weapon which fulfills a number of weird criteria, the definition only carrying legal weight in some places.

In some states, AR-15s are banned, and it seems there are restrictions on them in certain parts of Colorado.

In most of the US, you can have one just fine, though.

Dan Steele:[The Mac 10 is the perfect weapons for a drive by because of its 600 RPM bullet spray. What I mean by machine pistols is any handheld gun that can fire like a machine gun. I would be fine with guns like a 9mm or a glock, but anything rapid fire should be limited to the police or the military. Civilians have no need for a weapon like a Mac 10 or uzi.

You are fine with 9mm pistols and/or ones made by Glock, but not fully automatic weapons like MAC-10s and Uzis?

"9mm" refers to the calibre. There are Uzi's and MAC-10s (and any number of other SMGs) chambered to use 9mm rounds.

"Glock" refers to the manufacturer. They made the Glock 18, which is capable of fully automatic fire. It is also chambered for 9mm rounds.

...

I notice you say "rapid fire" instead of "automatic"...there's a big distinction, weapons manufacturers have been thinking of clever ways to get around the wording. Modifying your semi-automatic weapon so that the trigger bounces off your finger several hundred a minute is perfectly legal (at least in some areas in the US), it's not automatic that way.

"So I can't use guns...? I guess I won't be robbing that grocery store then..."

Right. They'll use a different weapon. If anything guns make crime LESS fatal, because how often will someone argue with someone that has a gun? If I were a storeclerk and had to choose between a bullet between the eyes or being blugeoned to death with a baseballbat, I'd know what I'd choose, but there's not really a difference in the result, now is there?

Anybody who owns a gun, no matter how old it might be must be recorded and hold a gun licence (firearm certificate issued by the police) otherwise the police will arrest you and be sentenced by judge.

Most guns are shotguns in the UK and there are different levels of certificates for less/more powerful shotguns with it's own thorough security checks which are not all available to every single person. If you carry the shotgun in your car or in public (must be concealed) the police have a right to stop and search then arrest you unless you can convince the officer you're carrying it for justifiable reasons (clay pigeon shooting or something along those lines)however it would be likely the case that you'll be sent to court to prove and convince the judge otherwise. This goes for all weapons.

Right. They'll use a different weapon. If anything guns make crime LESS fatal, because how often will someone argue with someone that has a gun? If I were a storeclerk and had to choose between a bullet between the eyes or being blugeoned to death with a baseballbat, I'd know what I'd choose, but there's not really a difference in the result, now is there?

What?

Ranged weapons easily outmatch melee weapons. The shopkeeper in this case will have a very good chance to defend himself, he could just run :/ or smash a bottle of gin over his head.

It's also much easier to regulate firearms in a country that doesn't allow it's general population to carry them than one that does.

What has being an island nation has to do with it?In most of Europe guns are illegal and you can't really call that an island. Our police does carry guns however, seems a bit stupid to not even give the polive weapons.

This guy had 4 firearms, ~6000 rounds of ammo, Tear gas, Swat Level body armor(not illegal I believe), booby trapped his own apartment with explosives, killed 14 people and wounds 58 others, Dyed his hair red and called himself the joker, but yeah, was probably the guns fault.

If he had stolen an 18 wheeler and crashed it into the line of people waiting to get into the theater, would there be a national calling for stricter laws on selling cars? Tougher to get a drivers license?

Question to people who are anti-guns: What do you think happens when a criminal who wanted to shoot someone in the face does if he doesn't get a firearm?

I'll answer it, they either start doing things like creating highly-complex chemical bombs or they pick up a rock and smash the dudes head in with it. Take their rock away and they'll use a branch. Take their branch away and they'll use the fists. You could go down a endless list of ridiculous bans and you would still have crime.

WHEN THERE IS A WILL, THERE IS A WAY!

The pro to letting your citizens carry fire-arms is that they can stop people who are mugging / raping / trying to kill them without having to wait five or ten minutes for the cops if they get a phone in that time.

Also, banning guns doesn't mean that people won't get them or make them, look at the prohibition.

TopazFusion:So gun control is the next hot topic in the rotation huh? (After gender politics, feminism, and rape)

This guy had 4 firearms, ~6000 rounds of ammo, Tear gas, Swat Level body armor(not illegal I believe), booby trapped his own apartment with explosives, killed 14 people and wounds 58 others, Dyed his hair red and called himself the joker, but yeah, was probably the guns fault.

If he had stolen an 18 wheeler and crashed it into the line of people waiting to get into the theater, would there be a national calling for stricter laws on selling cars? Tougher to get a drivers license?

That's also a very good argument on this.

RaginDoomFire:i actully dilike guns but it is inrooted in my system [from family] to dislike the idea of oulawing guns. SO the only reason i can think for them is: Its America ,in a red neck voice [not to be ofensive im american and several people in my family are rednecks]

This highly reminds me of "I'm not racist but black people need to go burn in hell. But its OK that I'm saying this because I have a black friend."

It's also much easier to regulate firearms in a country that doesn't allow it's general population to carry them than one that does.

What has being an island nation has to do with it?In most of Europe guns are illegal and you can't really call that an island. Our police does carry guns however, seems a bit stupid to not even give the polive weapons.

You don't call this an island?

Very strange indeed.

It's much easier to regulate what comes into the country legal or otherwise, when you're surrounded by a body of water because it makes any large scale smuggling operation that much more difficult.

America on the other hand...

Has several points of access as well as gun culture.

You tell me which one would be more difficult in terms of firearm regulation, legal or otherwise?

FireDr@gon:Yeah, it starts off as "we only need to kill a few, not all" but what about in 10, 20, 100 years when "Oh look, we need more land" and the piggies have to take another one for team human.

I CAN tell the difference between pigs and people, i just consider both to be equally important in the grand scheme of life.

Get over yourself, if you think humans are so great - give them another 100 million years and see if they're still around. Most species on earth have had alot more time on it than us and they're still going strong and havent managed to destroy themselves or ruin the planet for everything else in that time. Homo-sapiens, however, are literally a mass-extinction event and they've only been around for around a million years.

I guess i am in a minority with my views, but that doesn't make them wrong - i'm just being objective. Also if you care about humans so much, how about you stop rallying for something that is designed to kill them, oh and also stop supporting ideals which will ultimately lead to our very existence being threatened.

Want to stop people raping and stealing? dont just kill them, there will always be more - seek out the cause of a problem instead of dealing with the effect all the time.

Hehe. Okaaaay.

Yes, when there's an intruder in my home I'm going to try and go all Dr. Phil on my assailant. Good plan. /Sarcasm

Look, if it makes you feel better: the Earth will recover no matter what we do. Species come and species go, again birth rates in more developed countries are more or less stabilizing, and -hey- I'm not against vertical farming. But until we reach a point where that equalizes, we need our resources. So that means "So Long, Piggies, Thanks For Being So Delicious!"

Actually wild pigs are virtually inedible due to being infested with a variety of diseases and parasites.

It's also much easier to regulate firearms in a country that doesn't allow it's general population to carry them than one that does.

What has being an island nation has to do with it?In most of Europe guns are illegal and you can't really call that an island. Our police does carry guns however, seems a bit stupid to not even give the polive weapons.

snip

Of course is the UK an island, i just don't think that it has very much to do with the fact that guns are illegal in the uk. Sure it's easier for them to regulate what comes into the country, but in most of Europe (maybe even all of it) guns are illegal too (That was my point) and Europe is no island for sure (That was what i meant by saying, you can't call that an island)